Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

View

Discuss

Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

rts008 writes to tell us Reuters is reporting that a conservative alumni group is working hard to expose 'radical professors'. The group is a creation of 2003 UCLA graduate, Andrew Jones, who stated that he runs the organization on his own with $22,000 in private donations. From the article: "Jones told Reuters he is out to 'restore an atmosphere of respectful political discourse on campus' and says his efforts are aimed at academics who proselytize students from either side of the ideological spectrum, conservative or liberal. 'We are concerned solely with indoctrination, one-sided presentation of ideological controversies and unprofessional classroom behavior,' Jones said on his Web site." The tactics used by Jones and his group are raising quite a few questions, however, offering to pay students for recordings or teaching materials that could provide 'evidence' against professors in question.

I don't understand. Do you consider the actions Andrew Jones to be "criticism"? Please explain to me how bounties for outing "radical professors" is constructive criticism, or just plain criticism. Cuz to me, it simply smells of someone not being happy with what someone else told him, and decides to pressure that someone into silence. There is no debate, there is no exchange of ideas, just plain political arm twisting. This is not about furthering academic debate; it's about imposing political beliefs.

Because you do know what this is going for, right? This is trying to establish that there is pervasive left-wing brainwashing going on in schools. Then Jones can look to Congress to rectify this problem by passing a law that forces all classes and professors to not discriminate against other political (i.e., right-wing) views. The end-result will be that everyone with a bad grade in a class will argue that they got that grade due to political discrimination, and professors will be forced to teach in the most inoffensive fashion possible.

Between this and the insistence of people to teach ID as though it is a science, the future looks grim for US education. If I ever have kids, I can guarantee you that they won't go to school in the US. Because I refuse to sabotage their competitive future in the world just to satisfy some right-wing nutjobs who have no idea what real discrimination (or debate) is.

And I also suspect that this discussion will revolve around what laws should passed to protect the poor republicans who were victims of such odious and threatening discrimination.

But you must admit, there would be a certain delicious irony in that, wouldn't there?;)

Anyway, I think we'll just have to wait and see what happens - for all I know, the only examples of what they're looking for at UCLA will turn out to be rather picayune, and these guys will do nothing more than blow their own credibility.

FWIW, the attempts lobby a legislative body into something like what you're talking about have already happened [plastic.com]. Here is a snippet from the writeup:

The bill, with language basically provided by Horowitz, would establish "free inquiry and free speech" in university classrooms throughout the state. The problem, as opponents see it, is that this free inquiry and free speech is going to come at the expense of valuable classroom time. The bill mandates that professors seriously consider and debate obscure, irrelevant, or counterintuitive theories that students might bring to class. According to Rep. Dan Gelber (D -- Miami Beach), one of the bill's opponents, opinions such as "abortion is a sin" or "the Holocaust never happened" would have to be given classroom time to discuss and debate. And, should a professor refuse to turn his or her classroom into an open-ended intellectual food fight, the bill would give students legal standing to take the school to court over the refusal.

Public universities use taxpayer money. In a perfect world, taxpayer money would not be used to advance one ideology over another. Therefore, it makes perfect sense to criticize that behaviour when it happens.

You can't tax away someone's money and spend it on something they don't want, and then use the "take it or leave it, you have a choice" argument.

Since bloody when? I hear this argument used all the time by conservatives to attack things they don't like. "I don't want my money paying for abortions!" "I don't want to have to pay for other people healthcare" I don't want to pay to do X" where X is generally some social good. You know what? Too Fucking bad!

What about what *I* don't want to pay to support? huh? Like illegal invasions of other countries? Like defense spending that's so overbloated as to prevent any and all social progess programs, and scientific research? In a perfect world a large portion of America wouldn't have any voice in government at all, because they are so twisted, evil, judgemental, greedy, and vicious they should be locked away in pyschiatric wards.

Public universities use taxpayer money. In a perfect world, taxpayer money would not be used to advance one ideology over another. Therefore, it makes perfect sense to criticize that behaviour when it happens.

You've bought into the false idea of fair balance.

This university system itself is considered the public good, not any one individual professor. Taxpayers don't fund them individually. Professors are supported to think freely; this is their value. Every boundary you draw around that is a limitation - a political one. After all, who and how would we decide what it means for taxpayer money to support one ideology over another? Should we not have professors of Marxism? Should they not be allowed to, for instance, point out the things that are good (and bad) about it? Does that make you, a taxpayer (I presume) uncomfortable? What about all those capitalism-supporting economists?

I would also remind you that we don't live in a perfect world, and we have no idea of what that means, and it can be dangerous to try to force upon our world what we think of as the perfect model. That is the very definition of ideology. For instance, a perfect world has no war, right? So we should disband the military immediately. I think everyone would agree that would be a disaster, even if it seems like it would move us "closer" to this abstract "perfect world"...

For those who can't hack the left-of-center politics at UCLA, I have two local suggestions for alternatives:

Alternative 1, for those wanting to study Political Science, Business or Law: Pepperdine [pepperdine.edu], Malibu, CA.

Yes, you can study at a law school where Kenneth Starr is the Dean! [pepperdine.edu] And that's just the beginning. Pepperdine was founded by Southern Baptists and is almost thoroughly Conservative-run. Only the school of Education and Psychology (why am I not surprised?) harbors liberal rebel scum. If you avoid that bastion of hippie-dom, you are good to go. And besides, it's in Malibu.Righteous waves and babes in bikinis. You know you want it.

Alternative 2 for those wanting to get their Divinity degree: Biola [biola.edu], La Mirada, southern Los Angeles County, CA.

The Bible Institute Of Los Angeles has been known as the province of fire-breathing Fundamentalist Christians for about a century. You don't have to go to the Southeast and the Bible Belt to get that old time religious education, it's right there. Perhaps the only place more hardcore than Biola is Bob Jones University.

Both of these places are realistic alternatives for those who would rather not go to UCLA. I guarantee you, you will not have your precious Right-Wing political preferences challenged either place. You might have to pay more, because both of these are private institutions, but that wonderful feeling of not having to listen to grubby liberal eggheads spouting off with opinions that Rush and O'Reilly and Hannity tell you are "just plain wrong" is priceless, right? Right?

I think the point is that a public university should, on the whole, be POV neutral. To some extent this is accomplished by Biology teachers not talking about politics (or ID) and to some extent by making sure that in the areas where it's impossible to avoid politics to some extent, extreme right/left/up/down professors are not hired and a professor being consistently intolerant of academically responsible alternative views from their customers (the students) should be a "fireable" offense. This does not of course mean that a professor needs to allow riots in her lecture hall or can't control the lecture hall - just that no one's ability to speak should be interfered with solely because of the content of their speech as long as the topic is relevant and the view is not so extreme and provably false that it's absurd (and clearly supporting the right of Israel to defend itself or the notion that the U.S. military actions in the Middle East are appropriate are not so extreme to be absurd.)

UCLA should not be (nor do I think it is) the left wing equivalent of Pepperdine or Biola.

While I question the need (and the motives) of the "tape recorder gang", a professor at a public university should be happy to have their views broadcast and not feel they must hide them from those paying their salaries. There is a risk of "out of context" quotes, but the risk is even greater when the only record is hand written notes. Also, I would expect that professors may choose to record their own classes also to make sure that if a claim is made that is untrue, that they can refute it.

Good point. Unfortunately, vouchers seem to have stalled, thanks to the teachers union. Woohoo. Shame I can't dismantle the teachers' union on my own.

As for the "blacklist", it's a free country, and they can do what they want.

Very true. But you're forgetting the context in which this is taking place. This stunt is about as transparent as it gets. See the link posted by Doormat in this thread.

It's no surprise the profs are playing the "poor victim" card - why can't they just stand up and being proud of their beliefs?

If you'd read the statements of the professors involved instead of just assuming what they're saying, you might be surprised to find out that that's exactly the stance they're displaying. Most of them know that they're not exactly mainstream, and are quite proud of it.

Just discarding the idea that students are discriminated against because of their political views (which have nothing to do with class) is naive, and reeks of some bias on your side.

You're right, I have not offered any evidence that people are not being discriminated against based on their political beliefs. That's because no one has yet offered any evidence other than "My grades are too low! Bias! Waah!" in support of the discrimination. Do you also expect me to prove the non-existence of white crows before continuing this discussion?

As long as they're fair, and include discrimination from all sides, not just the left, I think it's a good idea.

You seem to not have read the article:
"The Web site of the Bruin Alumni Association also includes a "Dirty Thirty" list of professors considered by the group to be the most extreme left-wing members of the UCLA faculty, as well as profiles on their political activities and writings."
There is no similar "Dirty Thirty" list for extreme right-wing professors.

Intelligent Design claims that complex natural life forms can only be created by something it terms a designing intelligence. OK... so, let's contemplate that for a bit.

If we allow the creating intelligence to be natural, by our original premise, it too must have a creating intelligence that created it, and so on. We're left with an infinite regress. So, how to go about breaking it?

Well, maybe we could posit a supernatural creating intelligence. But, if we take that option we instantly take Intelligent Design outside the realm of science, and thus automatically forfeit equal status to scientific theories. So, that's no good.

The other option, is to accept that intelligence can arise solely out of natural processes, which clearly contradicts the original premise of Intelligent Design, so that's out the door too.

Dang it. No matter what we do, Intelligent Design ends up being self-contradictory, or non-scientific.

Straight from the article:
"The Web site of the Bruin Alumni Association also includes a "Dirty Thirty" list of professors considered by the group to be the most extreme left-wing members of the UCLA faculty, as well as profiles on their political activities and writings." That exact name does not appear on the site anymore, but a brief perousing of the site and the profiles makes it quite clear who the target is: professors deemed extreme left-wing by Andrew Jones. It's also quite clear that a professor more in the vein of Michael Savage or Limbaugh would be mentioned with praise as standing up to "an unholy alliance between anti-war professors, radical Muslim students, and a pliant administration".

Criticism is one thing, but using such tactics by students, neighbors, etc. for the purpose of "turning people in" is exactly the thing that totalitarian regimes are known to do. They try to make it a hostile environment to any opinion that isn't sanctioned by the group that sets up this sort of thing.

The students in the classrooms can interact and criticize all they like. The professors are probably poli-sci, philosophy, or socology teachers; i'd expect that all that they do is argue with students.

"Without criticism"? This isn't criticism, this is rightist ideological monitoring with intent to intimidate and/or destroy professors who don't espouse rightist viewpoints. This is a program to shut people up. to create a rightist country. to eliminate even the slightist whiff of anything to the left of Ronald Reagan, who is today something of a commie by rightist standards.

students today think that "60 Minutes" is a leftist TV program. They've already been indoctrinated with rightist viewpoints. The spectrum has been slammed to the right by intimidation just like this in the media and the schools. I don't know what an extremist would be, in this climate. Who's to the right of Cheney? What spectrum? It's bivalued: Bush and Cheney on the "right" and everyone else is the "left". The new definitions don't recognize extremism on the right.

America doesn't even have a left, anymore. I don't see many socialists running around. And no, not being a rightist doesn't automatically make one a "socialist".

Brings to mind that other article on slashdot about college students not being literate enough to parse a political argument. Might not be stupidity; might just mean they haven't been exposed to any real political thought besides Limbaugh for the last decade. Semantically mindwrecked, incapable of being reasoned with. Filled with Truthiness.

Germany did this in the thirties. A little nip at a time. Now they come for the professors.

This is fascism. Don't say it's not because a "private" group is doing it. Fascism BY DEFINITION is a partnership of government and private concerns acting in concert. The "non-government" types perform the deeds the government can't yet do; you'll find that the personel switch between government and private employment at will.

Republicans (and many Democrats, too) stand for the supression of liberties and freedoms (often in the name of "security"), do not promote responsibility, and often resort to corruption and illegal means of obtaining wealth. These days, they obtain much of their wealth via wars, which contradicts directly with peace.

Today it is Republicans who are moving towards (if they're not already in) a state of fascism. It is conservatives around the US who are taking a stand against such anti-American nonsense.

It seems you didn't read the rest of my post. The Democratic party is best viewed as a "Republican-lite" party.

These days, actual conservatives tend to vote for independent or libertarian candidates. They don't vote for the Democrats, and they sure don't vote for the Republicans, because neither party truly represents the views and ideals of conservatism.

Remember, if somebody votes Republican they are not a conservative. They are a Republican. Likewise, if somebody votes Democrat, they are not a liberal. They are a Democrat. "Republican" and "Democrat" are two political ideologies, much like conservative or liberal. As such the Republicans do not represent conservatism, nor do the Democrats represent liberalism.

So if the rich, Lexus-driving guy weren't "disdainful" of his employees, you'd be ok with him having a few billion dollars? And if theft is due to such "disdain", then why are most of the victims poor? Are they just too "disdainful" of each other? Too "hating"?

You might have detected a note of "disdain" in my post. I'm not particularly rich nor do I even have a car right now. But I can occasionally tell when someone speaks from ignorance or some irrational hysteria.

Small government conservatism is personified by Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan, and is also represented by libertarians. However, there are other types of conservatives. You have social conservatives, who deeply belive in the government protection of morality. (That strand of conservatism flies in the face of Goldwater conservatism; Goldwater's catchphrase is "You can't legislate morality," after all).

You had me at Goldwater, you lost me at Reagan. Reagan was a social conservative who deeply believed in

This guy also claims that he intends to go after professors on BOTH ends of the political spectrum (okay, yes, there are indeed more than two ends, bit it's a start.) If he does go after both ends, I don't know that I really have a problem with this. But knowing Universities, it is likely that there will be a larger portion of professors with a "liberal" bias than those with an extremely "conservative" one, and he will probably get called out because he will by default find more radical liberals than conservatives. If someone did the same thing to religious leaders they'd likely find the exact opposite statistics.

Not that you're going to bother supporting that comment, obviously. Just light the fuse and pretend that's somehow insightful. Evidence, reason, logical argumentation - these are the implements of lesser men, right?

In this case, we have the evidence before us:

The tactics used by Jones and his group are raising quite a few questions, however, offering to pay students for recordings or teaching materials that could provide 'evidence' against professors in question.

That, my friends, is a McCarthyite witch-hunt. There is no good reason to go around recording UCLA professors; if the school is concerned about the content of lectures, they can monitor them in person easily enough. Wanting recordings of the lectures smacks of a desire to rip what could be construed as controversial statements out of context. These quotes could then be circulated in talking points and the like to shore up the case against these 'ideological' professors.

Two years ago I would have regarded my above statement as paranoid - but we have seen the Swift Boating Method employed a few times now, sadly. It's all too familiar.

Other than the fact that it's not an arm of the state engaging in this pursuit. Oh, and nobody's being forced to testify against their own will by subpoena. Other than minor little details like that, why the situations are positively identical!

I'm interested in your argument as to why it's not OK, anyway. The right to speak freely precludes state sanction - it doesn't protect you from the consequences of private citizens not liking what you have to say.

I think your analogy is not quite right. For one thing, a conversation I have with my boss is private by definition. But a lecture given in a giant public lecture hall by someone whose salary is paid by my taxes is quite another thing.

Look at this way: do you think it equally troubling that newsmen and members of the general public might tape record the speeches of other public employees, like your Congressman or the Governor? Even if those speeches are later posted to blogs and used to criticize the guy?

Part of the bottom line here is that when your salary for speaking is paid by the citizens, you give up most of your rights to keep that speech private. I think professors at a public university have almost no reasonable expectations of privacy during their lectures. If they really don't like that, the solution is simple: give back the nice money to the citizens, and go work for a private organization supported by private money.

No, Not really. He never even gave his list of "57 communists working in our government" to the FBI. Certainly, a few of the people he pursued were either communist or sympathizers - but he had to victimize 1000 innocent people for every "true commie" he chased.

What we do know is that he was a wholly unremarkable Senator who was facing poor polls less than two years before an election. Then suddenly he pulls a piece of paper out of his ass and claims that he has the name of 57 commies in our government and armed forces. But he would never show the list to anyone. This was enough to get him re-elected -- once.

He ruined thousands of lives, but he never convicted any communists.

2) What the hell is wrong with collecting documents and recordings of things that the profs themselves said?

When everything you say is scrutized, recorded, and checked for the slightest hint that you may be some evil lefty, people will be afraid to say anything other than what the political bosses consider appropriate. This is not free speech.

Indeed, I have to admit, I was born in the 1930s, so I was quite young when fascism became a serious matter. However, I do know many veterans who fought in World War II, and were well aware of the political landscape at that time.

One thing you'll notice when you talk to almost any of them is that they're scared today. They think back to what they fought against, and they see it present yet again. Except this time it is being done in their name, by their countries. The proof is all around. It's obvious to them, and even to somebody such as myself, who has vague memories of such times.

Of course, somebody born in the last 30 or 40 years might not be able to notice such things by themselves, as they grew up within the confined of the system and thus cannot see beyond it.

Against whom has abuse been proven? Who has successfully won a trial against the government yet? Oh, that's right, no one. There have been a few suits putting the "burden of proof" on the government to prove they haven't tapped the plantifs. Those suits have been filed, not won. I won't call you a terrorist supporter. Just uninformed.

So in other words, the program of obtaining wiretaps without going through the courts, even the FISA courts which were specificly set up for the type of wiretaps that woul

As I've noted elsewhere, [instapundit.com] it's OK to argue for more intellectual diversity on faculties, and it's okay to complain about faculty members who bully students with different views. But the UCLA effort sloppily confuses the two and winds up looking like a blacklist, blowing its credibility in the process.

a way to balance classrooms as much as it's a witchhunt for "undesirables" and those who aren't quite right-of-center (Academia is considered to be more liberal than conservative, or at least it's presented as such). It shouldn't be allowed - What ever happened to the time when you could disagree with someone, but still respect their opinion? It's gotten disgusting in America - to the point now that you're either with us or just some asshole...

But this kind of crap shouldn't be allowed. So you disagree with your professor? Big deal - take it like an adult and agree to disagree.

Not quite what I mean - I mean, you can agree to disagree with someone, right? And you can express that opinion if you wish - but what good does it do to get that person fired over a disagreement? If you've made your point known, then you're done, right? Is there a need to be that vindicative?

I'm a "left-wing" professor and I don't grade anyone down for disagreeing with me. Shitty arguments for positions I agree with are still shitty arguments, and they receive the grade they deserve.

If I had no integrity and chose to reward people for agreeing with me and punish those who didn't, there are institutional procedures and protocols set up by which students could appeal their grades. If this happened often, my grading practices would be placed under close scrutiny by the administration. I wouldn't last very long. Harrassment and belittlement are indeed more difficult to prove for the aggrieved student, but there are still ways.

What groups like the one mentioned in this article have thus far failed to do is to provide any credible evidence of such malfeasance. What they do instead is to present evidence of professors' political leanings on the basis of those professors' public statements and activities. Unfortunately, people like you, Anonymous Coward (and you do live up to your name here), take that as evidence that a conservative can't get a fair shake. All it actually proves is that profs have opinions, which I believe they are still allowed to do here in the U.S.

The point is not merely that a professor's grading habits may be influenced by his biases. Of course they are.

That seems to be an article of faith. It's not reflected in the people I see around me. I teach a contentious bioethics class, so I'm constantly running into views that go against mine.

If that were the only problem, a prof's academic integrity would be a suitable counterbalance.

You've really missed the point here. I was arguing that the system is set up in such a way (via grievance procedures and the like) that flagrant lack of academic integrity can be challenged. It's a system that doesn't depend, Pollyanna-ish, on the unfailing good will of everyone involved.

It's not professors having opinions that is the problem. It's that expressing those opinions creates a herd mentality in the classroom.

I freely admit to trying to produce a herd mentality in the classroom: that of a herd of truth-seekers.

Disagreeing with those opinions means fighting the herd, something a young person finds difficult, and should not be forced, to do.

I'm trying to understand this and I can't. I do understand that it is difficult to express one's thoughts in what one feels is an unfriendly environment. (That's why I strive to produce a civil environment in the classroom and hold students to that standard. It's not really difficult to do. That said, I also think it's appropriate to respond to aggressive comments in such a way that reflects how aggressive they are.) But how do you go from "that's difficult" to "no one should have to do that"? I happen to think the skill of remaining in conversation with someone who doesn't agree with you is an essential component of thinking, and probably ultimately of peace, as well.

Adults disagree. You claim that students are "paying for knowledge." Maybe they should gain the knowledge of how to disagree without being disagreeable.

Students expect to learn, and have to have open minds to get the most out of their studies. Students shouldn't have to filter the chaff of political opinion from the grain of truth with which it's presented.

I think you couldn't be more wrong. Some of what I convey to students is information: that, however, is the least significant and easiest to verify or disprove. Much of what I strive to convey to students is the ability to think for themselves. That means precisely what they have to learn to do is to "filter chaff from wheat." That said, I don't do this by pummeling them with anti-administration talking points in classes that are not about that.

You claim it's the nebulous "environment" of presumed authority that is the problem. Let me note in passing how much this resembles a kind of point that's been made by opponents of racism, sexism, etc. for decades, and one that has been routinely mocked as an invalid kind of complaint for appealing to "unreal" entities like environments, communities, and unstated norms. My point is that if you've got actual leftists for professors, like myself, they are very familiar with this kind of idea. I for one strive to make students into authorities. My long practice at challenging half-articulated convictions is a tool for this kind of constructive work, not for "brainwashing." I happen to believe, as you apparently don't, that persuasion requires cooperation on the part of the person being persuaded. They have to choose to treat the person who's doing the persuading as an authority. I strive to help people make those sorts of choices and judgments less on the basis of personality and more on the basis of demonstrable truth.

I say all this only in order to offer a different perspective on what you think you're seeing in the classroom environment.

I mean, criticism shouldn't turn into full-blown harrassment, but if your employer decides that they no longer wish to associate with you, why shouldn't they be able to make that decision?

In many cases I've seen that, when an employer no longer chooses to associate with someone, the standard operating procedure is to harass them out the door. Most employers don't know how to productively terminate a relationship. Rather, they know, but they're trying every underhanded trick in the book not to be respon

I have had some professors whose political views were way far to the left of mine. But guess what? All of them, to a one, were more than happy to give me decent grades if I was able to back up my disagreements with their political views. I even had one prof who was quite literally a Communist and was pleased to let you know it and 100% open about it. I was a little frightened in the beginning that she would flunk me for my political views, which sit on the Political Compass [politicalcompass.org] at Economics: -4.63 Social Issues: -6.92.

Well, I got an A in her class, and I didn't even do the oral presentation of my paper because I got all crossed up about when the final was to be held. I've kept in touch with her, in fact. We disagree a lot, even now, but we respect each other. And on issues that really, really matter, we find more to agree upon than disagree.

I've yet to meet someone on the Right, however. Very odd. Closest thing was another prof who was staunchly pro-Israeli to the point of fanaticism. I suspect that folks that are on the Right tend to get jobs at political think tanks, in campaigns, and in business instead of going for a career as lacking in financial reward and respect as being a Community College or University Professor. You have to have motivations other than the Almighty Buck to put up with all the crap you get teaching for the money you make.

Then again, Kenneth Starr's the Dean of Pepperdine's College of Law, as I pointed out in an earlier post.

So you disagree with your professor? Big deal - take it like an adult and agree to disagree.

Well, see that's the thing. If you have a disagree with the professor, you have to keep your damn mouth shut, or you'll end up paying for it. Some of these professors have decided to turn their classrooms into a platform for their political views, even though it has nothing to do with the subject they're teaching. Take a class on French History, and you're all of the sudden bombarded with political views that have nothing to do with French History, and then have the professor turn on you when you try and point this out?

If you walked into a class you needed to have to graduate, and the professor turns out to be a radical right-wing nutcase (or a left-wing moonbat, take your pick) that you disagree with, what do you do? He spends more time yapping about his current axe to grind, rather than teaching the subject... what do you do?

There's no "agreeing to disagree" with these people. You have to shut the hell up if you plan on passing the class. Meanwhile, there's nothing you can do.

I have had experience with this. I had to take an English class whose theme was "War and Society"...and this was in the fall of 2003, not too long after the Iraq operation started. My instructor (a master's student) was very far to the left- about every day he would say, "Did you hear what happened in our illegal invasion of Iraq today? F*** Bush!!!" We had to write largely opinion-based papers and I wrote one that several who read it thought was pretty politically neutral. I turned it in and got a C-. I am not that great of a writer, but I do better than that. So I went and talked to him about the paper. He said that I needed to write what I thought, and being a naive young freshman, I wrote what I thought, which was a little right of center. Bad move: D-. So I asked him for advice on the next paper and what I ended up writing literally made me sick, but I wrote a very left-wing paper and got a B+ on it. He liked to see that he "helped me see the light" and so from then on, I wrote what he wanted to hear and not what I really thought and I did well.

However, I got the last laugh as when evaluations came around, I wrote a very accurate review of his class that was about as flattering as a miniskirt on Roseanne. (That makes my cringe just thinking about it! Gaaah!) Next semester came and he was not listed as a staff member. I inquired why and I was informed that he was terminated due to bad evaluations. He was let go from his TA position and now had to pay $30,000/year to continue his grad classes. He didn't have the money, so he quit school.

So the moral of the story is that you have to be *tenured* to pull that crap off in the classroom. Otherwise, it just might catch up to you.

Are they more learned or are they just able to fit in successfully with another group of liberal academics? It could be the more learned have moved into the private sector? You could play this game all day long.:-) My experiance is that for some of the professors I ran into, the academic setting is the only setting they would survive in.

Actually, it's more of the case of academics surrounding themselves with people they agree with politically, and black-balling those who don't. If you spent any time in an academic environment and actually sat on some of the hiring commitees as I have, you'd be quite surprised at what tenured professors get away with.I know of a department that had a professor that didn't get tenure because of that. The professor I'm talking about is a well-known person that co-authored a book that's quite popular. (

You ever wonder whether it might just not be a coincidence that the more learned members of society disagree with conservative values?

So, you think that conservatives are uneducated, eh?

I am a libertarian (a.k.a. small government conservative). There is a lot of theory and books written by all sorts of conservatives, and many of them have valid arguments to back up their beliefs. I disagree with social conservatives and neoconservatives, but I wouldn't say something like "the more learned members of s

Much of academia - especially at UCLA - is far to the left of Joe Stalin.Yes, and several of my professors were taller than Chairman Mao. Stalin was bad because he was a brutal totalitarian dictator that murdered countless of his countrymen to maintain his power. This has nothing to do with left or right, or your professors political beliefs, and to compare the two is disingenuous.

It [identifying profesorial ideologues who abuse their students by propagandizing them in class and/or grading on their studen

You know, I'm generally against tenure, because, well, it lets lousy teachers stick around long after their sell-by date. But this is exactly what it's for. Screw this guy and the nutjobs who are sponsoring him, once you have tenure, there's jack-all people can do to you. Which (in this case) is as it should be.

The Nazis didn't start out in control of the government. They and the groups that they sprang from (nationlist right-wingers with a good deal of support from the military) started out by intimidating opposition and those who spoke against them.

This is not a critique of professors. This is strictly the creation of a list of shame to pressure schools to micromanage the teachings of professors. Specifically, it is designed to pressure professors to teach the least objectionable content possible - exactly the contrary of what schools are supposed to do.

Don't like your school? Transfer. There is no monopoly on education. But accept that going to a crackpot school just to hear crackpot theories will impact your future earnings.

Indeed, it should be taken as an honour to be "exposed" by this fellow and his group. These are the kind of people that it's good to piss off. They're the sort who either have a vested (often financial) interest in the status quo, or are completely incapable of peacefully accepting the views of others (which in itself is completely anti-American).

If I were a university student, I would think of this sort of group as a blessing. They'd show which professors have the guts to provide their views without trying to self-censor. Those are the sorts of professors who are worth learning from.

Don't delude yourself: people will always have a political agenda, and it will always be a part of whatever they're doing.

More importantly, it's irrelevant if a professor holds such views, and expresses them to his or her students. Any truly intelligent student (you know, this is at the university level!) should be able to recognize such bias, and take it into account while taking a particular course.

University often isn't about sitting there and accepting what the professors say as fact. It's about hearing ideas that may differ from yours, so as to make you think a little bit harder than you normally would. It takes real responsibility to partake in and make use of a university-level education.

And the worst possible thing to do is either believe or insist that professors not involve their personal, biased views. That's the whole point of getting an education! To be bombarded by views you wouldn't have even bothered to consider, even if you do happen to disagree with them in the end.

Pretending to lack a bias is utter hypocrisy, not to mention unattainable and hence useless. A good professor will encourage thought and dialogue not by bland neutrality but by respect. That said, Andrew Jones' tactics recall the tactics of the most totalitarian governments, and his methods say a lot about his true understanding or regard for freedom.That said, I've had self-described Constitutionalist conservatives and John Birchers for teachers and professors, and I've yet to see anything like them in a

I always find it strange when people accuse academia of unfair bias. When the majority of the best and brightest in the country all lean towards a particular political philosophy, what should that tell you? (Hint: It's not that they were brainwashed and indoctrinated...)

You can argue that academics are too detached from reality, but I think that's wishful thinking from bitter people. All the people I know in academia are well-informed, widely-read, and thoughtful voters. A lot of universities also have many international scholars, which contributes to a wider perspective on politics. They tend to take a less simplified view of things, and to be more open to ideas coming from Europe and elsewhere. And if all that taken together leads one to a more socialist stance, that view should be taken seriously.

Now, if a professor were to mark down a student for expressing a different view (assuming they were able to defend their reasoning), that would be beyond the pale. But the things this group is talking about hardly rises to that level. There's nothing wrong with talking about your opinions in a university class where everyone is assumed to be a rational adult.

No no! The correct answer is always halfway between the opposing viewpoints! Don't you know that if Jill wants half the cake and Jack wants the whole cake, then the right thing to do is give Jack 3/4? Claiming that one group of people might be right and the others wrong is just unfair!

There's nothing wrong with talking about your opinions in a university class where everyone is assumed to be a rational adult.

Depends on the circumstances. When I teach statistics I have no business injecting my opinions about the latest foibles of the administration into the dialogue, unless they illustrate a point related to the course. I do, for example, talk about Limbaugh's misrepresentation of the Democratic/Republican voting records for the 1964 civil rights act - it's an almost perfect example

> I always find it strange when people accuse academia of unfair bias.> When the majority of the best and brightest in the country all lean> towards a particular political philosophy, what should that tell you?Respectfully, the days when academia represented the best and the brightest are long gone (if in fact, academia ever did). Standards have dropped disturbingly, even in the most prestigious universities. The top may still be very high, but the bottom is lower than ever, and the midpoint is fal

Statistically speaking people with collage educations are more likely to be liberals. Oddly enough the people with passports tend to overwhelmingly liberals. Furthermore a study showed that on average the viewers of the John Stewart show (liberal) were better educated and made more money then the viewers of Bill Oreilly.

I am afraid the facts disagree with you. Sure there are educated conservatives but the majority of people with degrees as liberals by a long shot.

I do think there is something to say with college exposing people to new viewpoints, but as a college student, I look around and see mostly rich WASP kids with white man's guilt, or kids getting a lot of gover

I am afraid the facts disagree with you. Sure there are educated conservatives but the majority of people with degrees as liberals by a long shot.

Poltical views range across a spectrum. From centrist, to moderate left/right to extremes at both ends. MOST people are somewhere in the middle... And I think you'll get very few arugments that there is a pretty harsh slant in academia...

We, as a society, REALLY need to re-learn the TRUE backbone of our nation -- COMPROMISE. If it wasn't our "Founders" -- those with extreme views on either side of the spectrum -- ability to COMPROMISE, America would have died in commity at the constitutional convention.

Ben Franklin, IIRC, interupted a particuarly heated argument during the creation of our Constitution -- he said something to the effect that "We have several planks of wood and we need to build a table. The pieces of wood are all uneven -- so to build a STRONG table, we must shave some bits off of each so they fit together and bare weight".

The left doesn't have *ALL* the answers... It's certain the right doesnt either.

*sigh*Someone went to too many anthropology classes and forgot to hit up their statistics class. Say it with me now!

Correlation does not imply causation!

"Furthermore a study showed that on average the viewers of the John Stewart show (liberal) were better educated and made more money then the viewers of Bill Oreilly."

Stupid people watch Oreilly because they are stupid, not because he is the bastion of conservatives. He is a stupid douche. The average vaguely intelligent person, conservative or otherwise tends to avoid Orielly like the plague. I am a libertarian and I can't stand the guy. The only thing entertaining about him is his aggressive interview style. Beyond that, he has absolutely nothing to offer. If I happen to stop on Fox news and see him speak, I generally can't go more then five minutes without turning it off.

I love the Daily show and I am a libertarian. John Stewart is a comedian. If you learn political ideology from the Daily Show, you are an idiot.

Statistically speaking people with collage educations are more likely to be liberals. Oddly enough the people with passports tend to overwhelmingly liberals.

Statistically speaking, criminals are more likely to be democrats. Statistically speaking, blacks are more likely to be criminals. Statistically speaking, actors are more likely to be liberals. If you take away from those stats being a democrat or black will make you into a criminal, or that being a liberal helps you act better, you are need to go back to school and take a basic stats course.

Say it with me again, "Correlation does not imply causation! "

The explanations as to why the average liberal tends to hold more degrees is close to endless.

-Liberals could have more degrees but they could be more inclined to be intellectually less valuable in terms of political and economic understanding, like art, film, and literature.

-If you count a community college degrees as being equal to a major universities degree you are skewing the data based upon who is more likely to get a community college degree.

-People tend to become more conservative as they get older. In the past, fewer people had degrees. This means that more degree holding people are younger people, who tend to be more liberal in ideology.

-Conservatives could be more likely to not go to college or drop out early in favor of perusing entrepreneurial opportunities.

My point?

Correlation does not imply causation!(if only Slashdot allowed the flashy blinking tag...)

As a political term, radical refers to those who critique the roots (hence "radical") of society. Since ours/yours is a capitalist society, this entails a critique of capitalism. Liberals, on the other hand, follow in the Enlightenment tradition of pluralist democracy, capitalist free markets, etc. Hence, the main position the radicals critique is liberalism - or neoliberalism, which is inclined more towards laissez-faire and minimal government intervention. While in an American context their sympathies will almost always lie more with Democrats than Republicans, radicals are hardly knee-jerk supporters of the US government. Liberalism is not a left-wing position - except in the US, where it has been redefined to be both center/center-right in practice and leftist by reputation.

Let me clarify my statement. The rules of academia do not follow those of the "real" world.

The university is an insular environment, often with its own police department, restaurants, theaters, etc. It is shielded from the rest of the city in which it resides by a thick layer of "college town". One can go for years without ever meeting someone unrelated to the university. This type of environment leads to a skewed and unbalanced political viewpoint.

Then there is the fact that universities, even most private universites, are funded by the government. This pre-disposes professors to a big-government pro-social-spending world view.

I've heard of professors who dress up in period costume. Maybe Political Science 101 should be taught by four professors dressed as Stalin, Hitler, Jefferson and Robert Owen each defending their systems.

In just a nod to modern rationalism, it would nonetheless be nice if there were a fifth professor to provide commentary.

Academia is very biased. Bias is not necessarily a bad thing. It is hard to study a topic for years and not end of taking a stand on it. The issue is when your bias prevents you from teaching people who have a different bias. In 95% of the schools out there, it is completely and utterly impossible to go through the sociology program as a fiscal and/or moral conservative. At best, you will get poor grades, constantly have to defend your every breath, and receive little to no supporting reading material to back up your views. At worst you will be failed multiple times.

My girlfriend is a sociologist. The worst case of abuse I have seen was when she took a class called "Capitalism and the Environment". Every single book and handout that she had was without exception Marxist. How in the hell you can justify teaching a class with the word 'capitalism' in it without reading a single pro-capitalist thinker is utterly beyond me. Not even addressing the opposition is the absolutely most dishonest form of teaching that you can do.

The worst part about this is that it insulates an entire field of thinking from any sort of opposition thinking. A brain dead liberal can make it through the sociology program that my girlfriend made it through. Hell, my girlfriends best friend is sweet, but dumber then a sack full of bricks and made it through with a B. A conservative or libertarian on the other hand would have to fight every single step of the way. Teachers teach nothing but a single side and challenge conservative students every step of the way. I am sure the few conservatives that make it through are as tough as nails, but you shouldn't need an iron will and lead skin to make it through a sociology program.

I am not sure that UCLA's methods are right or effective, but I am glad that they at least acknowledge a problem. A liberal kid should be able to learn economics. A conservative kid should be able to learn sociobiology. Certainly they should be challenged, but they shouldn't have to fight tooth and nail while others float past by simply nodding their heads in agreement with the subjective opinions of their teachers. Liberals have interest in economics and conservative have interest in sociology. It is a travesty that these programs at some school intentionally try and convert or fail the few brave souls willing to cross the lines.

You seem to assume that economics professors tend to be conservative. I read an article in The Economist a year or two back (can't seem to find it now), that showed that economics professors tended to be left-of-center in their views on average.

I guess it also depends on what you mean by "liberal". Professors can be socially liberal while fiscally "conservative", in the sense they favor free trade and other libertarian viewpoints.

Bullshit. "Bias" is just a way to silence people, without sounding like a Nazi. Thats all there is to this unfortunate word.

And dont give me the stupid wining about "they teach marxism and therefore i got a bad grade". First of all I really doubt the sociology courses were as marxist as you say, since (i) i have taken some sociology and have not found that to be true (ii) conservatives see marxism in their alphabet soup.

But lets assume that it is true. Even if it is true it is no excuse not to get a bad grade. If a "brain dead liberal" can understand Marxism and you cannot than you are just dumber than the brain dead liberal. Thats all there is to it. You do not have to agree with a theory to understand it and college classes always test understanding. Thus, you can always say in your exam "According to such and such marxist writer blah blah blah" and you do not need to say "it is my firm belief that blah blah blah". I myself have done this numerous times when I have not agreed with a certain writer.

If you cannot understand a theory because you do not agree with it, then sorry you have not picked up an essential skill that college is supposed to teach you and therefore deserve your bad grade.

It is funny how this neo-fascist practice of ostrasizing teachers that hold unpopular views is espoused by people that are supposedly "pro-capitalism". I am also pro-capitalism and realize that the best solution is to let every professor to do their own scholarship and their own research and let the market decide which professor's views more accurately match the reality of the natural world. After all, science is supposed to describe the natural world and not repeat opinions that are currently popular in congress or on the brain numbing political talk shows. And one would think that in a capitalist country, what is good science, i.e. what best matches the natural world would be decided by allowing every one to form their own opinion and then freely vote with their feet and wallets... by taking or not taking the classes of a certain proffessor, buying or not buying his/her books, reading or not reading his/her research, etc. And the career of any proffessor depends mostly on those things -- how many students take their classes, how much books they sell, and how influencial their papers are.

But instead these "pro-capitalists" would prefer that proffessors they do not like be singled out attacked and ostracised untill the schools that employ them have no choice but to fire them. These people are not pro-capitalists. Capitalism love it or hate it is entirely based on personal freedom. These people wish to enforce tight social control on individual speech and freedom.

There are a lot of nut job professors... think Churchill [wikipedia.org] Hell when I was at Stony Brook I tangled with some nutjob in Womyn's Studies and almost got throw out of school. Ultimately SUSB saw it my way and they gave me an A a I never went back but I'll bet a lot of kids forced into that class just got bullied or thrown out of it.

Fuck them. Do you job. Don't waste the student's time telling them America is a corrupt regime of facists and that GWB should be impeached for stealing the last 3 elections, and being AWOL, and Katrina, and Plame, and Iraq, and the 9/11 was inside job, yadda fucking yadda. Or that Bill Clinton's Penis (Clenis) is evil and that the Left hates America, is shrill, is on the wrong side of history, is responsible for Wellstone's death, yadda yadda fucking yadda.

You know what? If a professor is doing their job they have nothing to worry about.

Ward Churchill is NOT a nutjob professor. His writing and teaching is widely respected. You may not agree with his views, but that doesn't make him a nutjob. I'm willing to bet that you haven't read ONE of Churchill's many books.

A broken clock is right twice a day. Even if Ward Churchill [discoverthenetwork.org] has written something factual and useful in one instance, that doesn't make the rest of his work golden. Far from it [colorado.edu]:

We have concluded that the allegations of research misconduct, related to plagiarism, misuse of other's work and fabrication, have sufficient merit to warrant further inquiry.....The Standing Committee also will be asked to inquire into whether Professor Churchill committed research misconduct by misrepresenting himself as an American Indian to gain credibility and authority for his work.

I would think that his public statements alone are enough to discredit him. Regarding the 9/11 suicide attacks on the United States, Ward Churchill [opinionjournal.com] wrote:

As to those in the World Trade Center: Well, really. Let's get a grip here, shall we? True enough, they were civilians of a sort. But innocent? Gimme a break. They formed a technocratic corps at the very heart of America's global financial empire--the 'mighty engine of profit' to which the military dimension of U.S. policy has always been enslaved--and they did so both willingly and knowingly. If there was a better, more effective, or in fact any other way of visiting some penalty befitting their participation upon the little Eichmanns inhabiting the sterile sanctuary of the twin towers, I'd really be interested in hearing about it."

And who is this "Eichmann [auschwitz.dk]" that Ward Churchill compares to the clerks and business men & women killed in the World Trade Center? Follow the link.

The best anecdote I remember from my university days was a literature class. This was in the 80s. A student once asked the professor "what's a libertine?" The professor then gave the text book answer, witha couple of examples drawn form the French plays we were studying. He then said "Reagan. Reagan is a libertine. He as no morality."

Looking around the class room, I was shocked to see many students dutifully writing down that answer.

These Brownshirt students have brought to my attention critical academics and activists I would not have otherwise known about. The way they play these professors up is rather silly, in my view. But then, I'm twice their age, so maybe it's just an aesthetic thing on my part. Still, idealists like Douglas Kellner (http://www.uclaprofs.com/profs/kellner.html [uclaprofs.com]) are hardly "radical" in any sense. At least, they're no Weathermen. These academics, having a nuanced view of history and a strong affinity with common people, come across to me as concerned individuals of a Liberal mindset - like me the computer geek. Like my mother the folk artist. Like anyone concerned with the direction of our society in the midst of power abuses, rising populism, an obfuscating media, and unjustified wars.

This student group's attacks are full of cute asides, winks and nods to their compatriots: those sorts of people who think that protesting the Vietnam or Gulf Wars amounts to treason (they like to call it "treason" because it carries the death penalty). The writer makes a lot of fun of Kellner, for example, for doing what many young people did in the sixties - growing his hair, smoking weed, and rebelling against symbols of authority. (I like to remind such people that Jesus Christ himself preached open rebellion against authority, but not all these kids call themselves Christians. Still, they almost universally cite "authority" to back their views, and what better authority than the penultimate divine, right?)

As near as I can tell this student group is really just a bunch of kids who have glommed onto the extreme right-wing because it makes them feel powerful. They can go around pointing fingers at professors who are unhappy with the direction of American politics - those who refuse to applaud every time Bush tells a whopper or the corporate media cites American mythology - and count themselves among the "tough, rugged individualists" represented by such bastions of goodness as Bill O'Reilly and Rush Limbaugh. They have taken the short road to authority by becoming like-minded sycophants of the Regimented Order. Instead of having a truly nuanced view of human affairs and the politics of power they have attitudes based largely on pure style founded in nothing. Toughness for its own sake. Their kind of strength requires someone else to be weak, and they've chosen professors as an easy target.

If these students had truly critical minds they would be more like these so-called "radical" professors. They would be more interested in undermining authority, taking the road of self-discovery, and after gaining some experience, perhaps taking part in the unglamorous social movement to restore social balance. They would be less interested in ridiculing professors, who have about as much political power as your friendly neighborhood bartender, and more interested in restoring honor to our representatives in Washington by freeing them from special interests that run increasingly counter to the general welfare.

In a couple quick looks over the comments I see alot of hand-wringing and talking about how this is a slippery slope to Nazism and oh nos about the Conservatives beating up the Liberals and how the profs need to be able to speak freely.

What about the student's rights to an education and to speak freely?

I'm a Graduate Student in History, I focus on the Military History in the Middle East since 1918 and the American West from 1865 to the close of the Frontier in 1900. I've been graded down for writing about the Israeli Defense Forces vs. Egypt and Syria rather than focusing on the Palestinian "cause" in the Arab-Israeli Wars. I've been told flat out lies about the Conquistadors and when I tried to cite facts have been shouted down for it.

I'm not paticularly Conversative and I don't spout off in classes but I know that I can't take any class I want from any professor I want because there are some who do grade you down for your outlook on History and the subject matter you write about. In Israeli-Palestinian classes as I said before, I've been docked for looking at Arab-Israeli conflicts and history rather than the "occupation and resistance" even after clearing the subject with the Professors. I've had papers returned with a lower grade with the justifaction of "you pay for your focus". I've had TAs stop speaking to me and refusing to let me ask questions because I told them I lived in Israel, was attacked by Hezbollah and have more of an Israeli viewpoint to the Golan Heights.

Today, in Public Universities I don't see where a Student, at least in History, can study what they want and look at a subject from all sides because many professors either won't let you or punish you for it.

I'll take a stab at this one. But first, yes - the student can offer his bounty if he wants and I'm kind of glad to see people here arguing the rights of this from first principles rather than breaking up on partisan lines. That said, I'll explain what is wrong about this.

Presumably, after outing a professor who has expressed some unapproved opinion, the intention is to follow it up with pressure to stop or a PR campaign for "the other side" (whatever that will be). $22,000 has a purpose and whoever is donating this clearly has an agenda. The arguments for this student's right to do what he's doing have all centered on "Freedom of Speech" but clearly the intention is to curb the professor's freedom to promote her own views. Maybe it's only to present students leaving the lectures with pro-Intelligent Design or pro-Capitalism or pro-whatever leaflets, but I think that's highly unlikely.

The arguments for pressuring the professor not to give unapproved opinions in his lectures are that (a) he is paid to teach a particular subject and not another; and (b) the students don't have much choice to avoid his opinions if they have to go to that class.

Counter-argument A. applies to anything else that impairs the professor's teaching as well. There should be a system in place to check if students are suffering from poor teaching and if they are not, then there is no problem here to be addressed. Bear in mind that in many cases, the professor's individual views may be tied up with the subject they are teaching. It would be hard not to give views on ID if teaching biology, difficult not to explain socialism in economics.

Counter-argument B. has to do with whether he is misinforming the students. The intention to "out" the professor suggests that the opinions are minority or dissenting opinions. The students are over 18 now however, and have plenty of opportunities to hear the other side and make up their own mind. Whether or not the professor's opinions are considered "subversive" by others in the community has historically been a poor guide to whether those opinions are valid. Essentially this student with the bounty is attempting to bring pressure to bear on the proffesor to curb his Freedom of Speech. Powerful or numerous individuals ramping up the efforts to drive out opposing viewpoints.

So illegal? No the bounty may not be that and attempting to curb it with legislation would be misguided. But harmful and chilling effect? Yes.

I am apalled by the comments here, especially this one. Fascism? This guy is getting people to find out which professors are spouting (what he deems) absurd or unbalanced ideas and engage in (what he deems) unprofessional behavior, and then getting these people to document it.

And what's wrong with that is... ?

Why are people afraid that others will find out their opinions? If you don't want people to find out your opinions, DON'T VOICE THEM TO A LECTURE HALL FULL OF STUDENTS. If you don't want people to think you act unprofessionally in your position as a professor, DON'T ACT UNPROFESSIONALLY IN YOUR POSITION AS A PROFESSOR.

When did it become damaging to free speech to spread someone's message?

As a university student, I hate professors who go off-topic with politics. They spend entire lecture sessions discussing how Bush has ruined the country. If this was a political science class, I could understand some leftist speeches. For crying out loud though, this was a CS course!

Amen (pardon the pun). I am no lover of Bush, and quite frankly am sick of his supporters trashing liberals (Uh duh what do you think the president is? Certainly not conservative...).

That said, I'm also tired of hearing the Bush bashing from professors. For one thing, they're preaching to the choir (University of California). But more importantly, some of these profs just ramble on and on so long it's easy to forget what the lecture was supposed to be about. In a quarter-based university, it's important to be concise and get to the point immediately. If I want to talk politics, allow me to do so outside of the lecture hall. I do not want to hear the latest bush joke, I want to hear the solutions for the problem set assigned the week before. Or for my most recent bush-bashing professor, the ethnomusicological analysis of the Ottoman Empire, a class which is completely lecture-based and has no accompanying textbooks...

Well, not exactly right on the money. Shamefully close. I'll try to be as neutral as I can, although some of these are subjective, and my political leanings influence them.

Disclosure: I am a conservative. I am not a republican. I have never voted republican in a national election. I've also never voted democrat. I think national politics in America is an institution rotten to its core.

Powerful and continuing nationalism - check, but this isn't new to Bush.

Disdain for the recognition of human rights - check, and this one makes me sad. Even if the administration was angelic in every other respect, this is an unforgivable fault.

Identifying enemies or scapegoats as a unifying cause - check, but the enemy is real. That's a matter of convenience, I know, but something still has to be done.

Supremacy of the military - check, I'll give this one, but it's sort of overstated in the flash. As a conservative, I recognize the need for a military.

Rampant sexism - no, not really, although it seems unneeded for fascism anyway.

Controlled mass media - again, no. Sure, some media outlets lean the same way as the president. Others don't. It's a pretty good mix, in my opinion. On the other hand, I'm not like most people, which is to say I don't suffer from the disease of wanting to have my opinions parroted back at me. Overall, the media sells what people want to buy.

Obsession with national security - check, but once again, the enemy is real.

Religion and government are intertwined - no, not really. As a devout atheist, I'd probably notice. The President spouting personal religious beliefs does not a religious government make.

Corporate power is protected - half a check. Corporate power is certainly huge, but that's the nature of corporations. I personally don't believe in beating businesspeople down just for doing business in any case, but that won't be a popular sentiment on a site that is so anti-people-making-money-for-themselves.

Labor power is suppressed - half a check. There's not a tremendous amount of supression going on, and the power labor is losing is more related to globalization than anything else. Interestingly, the fix requires more of number 1.

Disdain for intellectuals and the arts - I don't see this one. I think it's elitism, frankly. Disdain for the Dixie Chicks was shown, and that's fine by me, but I've thought they sucked from their inception. (I'm being facetious with my example.)

Obsession with crime and punishment - half a check. Outside of the national security angle, this one is surprisingly lowkey for a Republican administration. In the flash it is said that the "police are given almost limitless powers to enforce the laws." A case could be made, particularly regarding the USA PATRIOT act, but right now, it's just not entirely true. Right on the ledge, though. A short consolidation of federal and state powers would do this trick quickly.

Rampant cronyism and corruption - check. That's called politics. It exists everywhere there are politicians. That's not an excuse, of course.

Fraudulent elections - nope. Sorry, there's never been anything produced that points a clear finger toward election fraud. This drum will be beat for a long time, I'm sure, but there's just no evidence.

So I see 7.5 out of 14. We'll call it 8. Terrible score overall, but it doesn't add up to fascism to me. I'm pretty sure we'd see a lot more suppression of dissent if we lived under a fascist regime.